Post by: lokidog on March 05, 2013, 10:16:07 PM
• Reducing the daily catch limit of cabezon to one fish in marine areas 4-11 and 13 and prohibiting the retention of cabezon measuring less than 18 inches in length. The rule, designed to provide additional protection for the species, also reduces the fishing season for cabezon in those areas to May 1 through June 15.
BS, BS, BS, BS, add infinitum! I hate WDFW with a passion!! And, anyone and everyone associated with them. Once again, I am sure there is no SCIENCE behind this, if there is, show me you worthless drains on society!
Now, in case anyone isn't clear where I stand.... Between this and the PS rockfish closure, my family will have the protien for somewhere between 20 and 50 meals that will have to be acquired elsewhere, thanks a lot. :pee:
I guess we can still eat this -- :fishin:
Post by: huntnphool on March 05, 2013, 10:24:04 PM
Post by: Jerome on March 05, 2013, 11:06:10 PM
I guess it was just a matter of time before they cut the season short. It wouldnt suprise me if they only gave us two days a week to fish for bottom fish.
Post by: steeleywhopper on March 05, 2013, 11:10:45 PM
Post by: snowpack on March 05, 2013, 11:20:09 PM
Post by: singleshot12 on March 06, 2013, 06:34:05 AM
Its the wave of the future here in the great state of Washington. You get to Pay More each year for Less!!!!!!! :bash::yeah:
maybe some of this non-sense can be reversed if we all call up and write olympia with our disgust. i think we need to face it wdfw doesn't always work for us tho :bash:
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on March 06, 2013, 06:44:18 AM
Its the wave of the future here in the great state of Washington. You get to Pay More each year for Less!!!!!!! :bash:NAILED IT ...BUT LET KEEP SUPPORTING THEM .....Yep we all do it So I guess we are all idiots ....From Recreation in general to fishing & hunting .....when will put a stop to their uncontroled spending ....think about this ....If they put all the money they recieve from licensing -raffles and governor tags just think what they could to to manage things correctly ...The governors tag alone good do some justice alone !!! I have no problem complaining Lodi !! some has too !!!! :tup: :tup:
Post by: Jerome on March 06, 2013, 10:23:02 AM
Post by: Gobble Doc on March 06, 2013, 10:26:34 AM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on March 06, 2013, 10:44:33 AM
Post by: lokidog on March 06, 2013, 10:49:09 AM
When they took rockfish (one per day) away from us, they blamed the endangered varieties... never mind that the three endangered ones mostly live way deeper than the coppers and quills. They could have simply put a depth restriction on them like lings. They could have even put a 14" size limit as a 16" fish can feed my family of four easily, but no, they shut it down completely. Copper and Quillback Rockfish will lay eggs at less than 14" in length.
Now, they take away Cabezon, with absolutely no made-up justification. Drop the limit to one per day, no problem, I've only caught two in one day once in the last six years.
The state has no harvest numbers or population estimates to base this on. I would dare say that I fish a lot more than the average Area 7 fisherman, for bottomfish anyways. Yet, I still only caught 5 Cabezon last year, in five or six months of fishing!! I would guess that few people, including charters were going out and fishing in the off-ling season to try to catch Cabezon, so just what would the harvest numbers be?
I may have to get my speargun sharpened up so that I can go out every single legal day and shoot a ling or cab this year in my month and a half of season....
The state does absolutely nothing for marine anglers that are not targeting salmon to justify charging for a Saltwater License. This continued erosion of our fishing rights, yes I said RIGHTS, is just another step in their ultimate goal to shut down "sport" fishing in this state. BTW all you State bios out there, prohibition is not REAL management.
Post by: Jerome on March 06, 2013, 10:57:06 AM
Post by: Rick on March 06, 2013, 11:10:49 AM
I would dare say that I fish a lot more than the average Area 7 fisherman, for bottomfish anyways. Yet, I still only caught 5 Cabezon last year, in five or six months of fishing!!
If this is the case,do you not think that maybe the population of Cabezon isn't as healthy as you think it is?
Post by: rackattack on March 06, 2013, 11:25:56 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 06, 2013, 11:27:18 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on March 06, 2013, 11:33:35 AM
Post by: h20hunter on March 06, 2013, 11:34:29 AM
Post by: Jerome on March 06, 2013, 11:35:06 AM
I would dare say that I fish a lot more than the average Area 7 fisherman, for bottomfish anyways. Yet, I still only caught 5 Cabezon last year, in five or six months of fishing!!
If this is the case,do you not think that maybe the population of Cabezon isn't as healthy as you think it is?
Not necessarily, you won't catch many cabezons while targeting lings. You will catch a few a year this way but they like different terrain. The few guys I know that target them like I do have no problems filling the two fish limit.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on March 06, 2013, 11:43:23 AM
Dare i ask why?They claim a friendly conversion out on my porch :dunno: that would be nice .... hahahahaa
Post by: lokidog on March 06, 2013, 11:45:07 AM
Lokidog get your boat ready. Lets limit on lings and cabs everyday this season.
Sounds good, if the boat is not in the water, it is 5 minutes away.... Share some gas costs and we're good to go.
quote author=bearpaw link=topic=120144.msg1585160#msg1585160 date=1362598038]
:yeah: If they reduced season on just cabezon there must be a reason. Has anyone asked WDFW why? It would be good to hear their reasoning.
[/quote]
Because there is nothing left to reduce the season on.... :bash: Wait, watch out you greenling and flounder/sole fishers, they are after you next.
I would dare say that I fish a lot more than the average Area 7 fisherman, for bottomfish anyways. Yet, I still only caught 5 Cabezon last year, in five or six months of fishing!!
If this is the case,do you not think that maybe the population of Cabezon isn't as healthy as you think it is?
Not necessarily, you won't catch many cabezons while targeting lings. You will catch a few a year this way but they like different terrain. The few guys I know that target them like I do have no problems filling the two fish limit.
I do pretty much just fish for them in the same spots I would for lings/rockfish. Part of my point is, they don't know what the populations are either, nor what the harvest levels are either.
The other thing is, with the price of gas, the number of people out here fishing, outside of ling or pink season, is almost non-existent, so how can the harvest numbers be very high?
Post by: Becky on March 06, 2013, 11:46:10 AM
I got ONE cabezon while on a charter boat for rockfish, I was the only one who got one, and it was probably the tastiest fish I've had. I want more lol.
Post by: bobcat on March 06, 2013, 11:49:06 AM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/rule_proposals/comments/files/Proposals65n69_NormBaker.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/rule_proposals/comments/files/Proposals65n69_NormBaker.pdf)
Post by: lokidog on March 06, 2013, 11:50:52 AM
I don't know much about fishing for bottomfish/cabs, but I'm interested in this thread and the new regulations. Seems like you mostly can only catch ANY bottomfish with a boat - correct?
I got ONE cabezon while on a charter boat for rockfish, I was the only one who got one, and it was probably the tastiest fish I've had. I want more lol.
Correct. You can get some bottomfish off the jetty out in Westport but that can be a pretty hard fishing trip. Some people fish off the rocks like at Washington Park in Anacortes for Greenling.
Post by: lokidog on March 06, 2013, 11:59:32 AM
Third, Sierra Club also supports proposed change #65 which provides a minimum size limit on
Cabezon. Although Cabezon are not a species of concern, WDFW data shows that Puget Sound’s
Cabezon population is a fraction of its historical abundance. Reducing the fishing pressure on
Cabezon populations will benefit them immediately.
Not a species of concern? Then WTF?? Take out a few harbor seals if they want to make a difference, between the bottomfish the seals directly eat and their competition for herring, they cause more of a problem than fishermen.
And this is another bunch of BS
First, Sierra Club supports the proposed change #69 which reduces the Lingcod season in Area 4B to
align with the rest of Puget Sound. This step is necessary due to the significant protected rockfish
bycatch associated with the Area 4B Lingcod season in July, August and September documented in
the WDFW 2011 Area 4B test fishery. Data from the test fishery shows that for every legal Lingcod
caught during the test fishery, thirty-five ‘protected’ rockfish were caught and probably killed or
damaged due to barotrauma and possible physical injury. This should not be allowed to happen.
Granted, I am not in region 4, but in the last seven years, out of easily a thousand or more rockfish brought to my boat, including off the coast, THREE (3) of them were "endangered" ones, two swam away unharmed and the third was eaten by a shark before it regained its senses.
THIS LETTER IS JUST MORE PROOF ABOUT WHO wdfw WORKS FOR, IT AINT US!!
Post by: Fishstiq on March 06, 2013, 12:01:07 PM
I may have to get my speargun sharpened up so that I can go out every single legal day and shoot a ling or cab this year in my month and a half of season....
You're preaching to the choir! Spearing season is about half what hook and line guys get for ling.
So lemme get this straight. 2 years ago, the brilliant minds at WDFW made a "slot limit" rule for ling cod, over 24 inches but under 36. Due to so many lings being harvested under the slot limit and being thrown back either dead or dying, they removed the bottom of the slot limit. This year, they put a bottom end limit on Cabbie.
I'm no architectural engineer, but I think I see a potential problem.... :bash:
Post by: Special T on March 06, 2013, 12:35:46 PM
Post by: Special T on March 06, 2013, 12:38:27 PM
The dept. wants to come and talk to me in the next fews days :yike: I will handle this for you ! :yeah: :chuckle:
There is an old proverb that states " It is the nail that sticks up that gets hammered!" BH45 There is no hiding now so you either have to keep being hard headed, or submit. :twocents:
Post by: Curly on March 06, 2013, 12:54:18 PM
Post by: Rick on March 06, 2013, 01:00:37 PM
Post by: Curly on March 06, 2013, 01:05:58 PM
Post by: snowpack on March 06, 2013, 01:06:13 PM
If the Sierra Club is so concerned about fish, then why don't they support culling a couple thousand CA Sealions and some seals? :dunno:They do...if it's the whales eating them.
Post by: bearpaw on March 06, 2013, 01:29:00 PM
It is really a shame that WDFW has to be run that way. Why do we have to constantly attend meetings and give public input to WDFW instead of them just doing the right thing without us having to watch them like a hawk.? I just hate that it has to be this way...........
I agree 110%, I'm sick of having to take my time to "protect" hunting and fishing opportunities. WDFW is being paid to manage fish & wildlife utilizing scientific data to maximize recreational oportunities. Instead they are a tool for all the green groups.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on March 06, 2013, 01:46:38 PM
It is really a shame that WDFW has to be run that way. Why do we have to constantly attend meetings and give public input to WDFW instead of them just doing the right thing without us having to watch them like a hawk.? I just hate that it has to be this way...........
I agree 110%, I'm sick of having to take my time to "protect" hunting and fishing opportunities. WDFW is being paid to manage fish & wildlife utilizing scientific data to maximize recreational oportunities. Instead they are a tool for all the green groups.
On that note, would it be better if all decisions were made arbitarily and behind closed doors and just dropped in place? No chance for any in input from user groups? Everyone, including the green groups and anti-hunters have their ideas as to what is the right thing to do.
Not every group is ever going to be 100% happy or in agreement, but at least having the chance to provide input shouldn't be something that is complained about, I would think.
Post by: magnanimous_j on March 06, 2013, 02:10:57 PM
A lot of fisheries in the world are suffering greatly due to overfishing. America does a generally pretty good job of managing ours.
What would you rather have: Closing a season for a couple years to reduce pressure on a species that's getting close to being threatened, or overfishing a species and have it take decades to recover?
Post by: lokidog on March 06, 2013, 03:08:35 PM
Oh my god! Not every inconvenience is a liberal conspiracy.
A lot of fisheries in the world are suffering greatly due to overfishing. America does a generally pretty good job of managing ours.
What would you rather have: Closing a season for a couple years to reduce pressure on a species that's getting close to being threatened, or overfishing a species and have it take decades to recover?
The problem with "Closing a season for a couple years..." is that it will never be reopened! In Sierra's own report it says they "are not a species of concern", so why essentially shut the fishery down? WHy not collect more data, like actual catch information, or pretend "bycatch" surveys done by biased groups like the Sierra Club?
For those of you complaining about the new regs,how many commission meetings in Olympia did you attend?
For one, I never saw this anywhere in their meeting/comment period notifications, though I may have missed it and, well, here you go...
I agree 110%, I'm sick of having to take my time to "protect" hunting and fishing opportunities. WDFW is being paid to manage fish & wildlife utilizing scientific data to maximize recreational oportunities. Instead they are a tool for all the green groups.
All you P Sound bottom fishers, how many of the "endangered" rockfish (canary, yelloweye, and bocaccio) have you caught in the last three years since the depth restriction of 120' was put in place?
There ARE ways to minimize protected bycatch, the big one being the depth restriction, these fisheries do not need to be curtailed any more than the already restrictive limits that were in place.
Post by: Smossy on March 06, 2013, 03:28:50 PM
It is really a shame that WDFW has to be run that way. Why do we have to constantly attend meetings and give public input to WDFW instead of them just doing the right thing without us having to watch them like a hawk.? I just hate that it has to be this way...........
0. But all the fishing is done from piers. Even Indianolas infamous 300ft pier.Oh my god! Not every inconvenience is a liberal conspiracy.
A lot of fisheries in the world are suffering greatly due to overfishing. America does a generally pretty good job of managing ours.
What would you rather have: Closing a season for a couple years to reduce pressure on a species that's getting close to being threatened, or overfishing a species and have it take decades to recover?
The problem with "Closing a season for a couple years..." is that it will never be reopened! In Sierra's own report it says they "are not a species of concern", so why essentially shut the fishery down? WHy not collect more data, like actual catch information, or pretend "bycatch" surveys done by biased groups like the Sierra Club?For those of you complaining about the new regs,how many commission meetings in Olympia did you attend?
For one, I never saw this anywhere in their meeting/comment period notifications, though I may have missed it and, well, here you go...
I agree 110%, I'm sick of having to take my time to "protect" hunting and fishing opportunities. WDFW is being paid to manage fish & wildlife utilizing scientific data to maximize recreational oportunities. Instead they are a tool for all the green groups.
All you P Sound bottom fishers, how many of the "endangered" rockfish (canary, yelloweye, and bocaccio) have you caught in the last three years since the depth restriction of 120' was put in place?
There ARE ways to minimize protected bycatch, the big one being the depth restriction, these fisheries do not need to be curtailed any more than the already restrictive limits that were in place.
Got some shocking sizes on sole and flounder though! Never seems to be a lack of sole.
Post by: uplandhunter870 on March 06, 2013, 03:34:57 PM
Oh my god! Not every inconvenience is a liberal conspiracy.
A lot of fisheries in the world are suffering greatly due to overfishing. America does a generally pretty good job of managing ours.
What would you rather have: Closing a season for a couple years to reduce pressure on a species that's getting close to being threatened, or overfishing a species and have it take decades to recover?
my dog in this issue is about the size of a chiwawa since i fish over there only a couple times a year but what i would rather see is the DFW managing with hard science and real numbers and publishing that data to support management decisions. wildlife management isnt a soft science like politics or sociology its a hard science that should be driven by numbers and statistics if DFW wants to suspend or close harvest of a given species i want to see the numbers and science that got them to the decision not a letter from an organization like the sierra club saying "this would be a good move because it fits better with our organizations motto of 'look but dont touch'"
over fishing is an issue in many parts of the world but at least the organizations involved in the management of those over fished fisheries publish actual numbers and harvest quotas, when was the last time the DFW published any sort of real verified numbers on anything
Post by: BigGoonTuna on March 06, 2013, 09:00:33 PM
just think of all the fishing opportunity we've lost in just the past 5 years. it's sickening.
Post by: FisherKing on March 06, 2013, 09:06:01 PM
Well I think if one looks at the biology of rockfish you can see the problem. They don't migrate, they're territorial and they don't have a high rate of reproduction. It sucks yes but some species just can't handle alot of fishing pressure. Look what happend to the cod run in agate passage. Anyone remember the butt load that you use to be able to catch, I do. Now that run is gone decimated by over fishing.
There's plenty of fish in the sea just may take more work to catch.
Post by: Kola16 on March 06, 2013, 09:21:04 PM
All you P Sound bottom fishers, how many of the "endangered" rockfish (canary, yelloweye, and bocaccio) have you caught in the last three years since the depth restriction of 120' was put in place?
Two canaries on the same day..........you asked :chuckle: And btw...they were released in perfectly great condition :tup:
Hmm,
Well I think if one looks at the biology of rockfish you can see the problem. They don't migrate, they're territorial and they don't have a high rate of reproduction. It sucks yes but some species just can't handle alot of fishing pressure. Look what happend to the cod run in agate passage. Anyone remember the butt load that you use to be able to catch, I do. Now that run is gone decimated by over fishing.
There's plenty of fish in the sea just may take more work to catch.
A cabbie is not really a rockfish....well it is, but it isn't :chuckle:
Post by: lokidog on March 07, 2013, 08:41:01 AM
Hmm,
Well I think if one looks at the biology of rockfish you can see the problem. They don't migrate, they're territorial and they don't have a high rate of reproduction. It sucks yes but some species just can't handle alot of fishing pressure. Look what happend to the cod run in agate passage. Anyone remember the butt load that you use to be able to catch, I do. Now that run is gone decimated by over fishing.
There's plenty of fish in the sea just may take more work to catch.
Yes, rockfish are slow producers, but I know for a fact that a 12 to 14 incher will produce thousands of eggs, so a slot limit of 14 to 20 or 22 inches would protect both the younger, small breeders and the old breeders. With a depth restriction on fishing, incidental mortality would be less and the catch of protected yellow eye and canaries would be low as well. If the state really cared about yellow eye rockfish, they would have included a picture of a juvenile 20 years ago in theire rockfish ID guide in the regs since the juveniles look different than the adults.
As far as cod go, true cod I assume you are referring to, it was the massive commercial fishing in the 70's and 80's that decimated their populations along with pretty much unregulated sport fishing (I was not here then and this is my understanding from long time PS fishermen).
And, yes, there are plenty of fish in the sea, we are just not allowed to keep any of them.... :bash:
Kola, you are correct Cabs are not in the Sebastes family which are the Rockfishes. They are inn the Sculpin family.
Post by: lokidog on March 15, 2013, 09:18:19 PM
The commission did, however, keep a new rule that will reduce the daily catch limit of cabezon to one fish in those marine areas and prohibit the retention of cabezon measuring less than 18 inches in length.
Which is funny because I think it used to be only open through October. :dunno:
Too bad they weinered the shark fishermen though with their revisions....
Post by: Special T on March 17, 2013, 10:18:11 PM
Post by: snowpack on April 23, 2013, 06:28:39 PM
I guess they will try again with this.
Post by: lokidog on April 23, 2013, 09:36:13 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/cabezon/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/cabezon/)
I guess they will try again with this.
Yeah, saw that, this time they will at least PRETEND to kiss us before they, well ... , you know the rest. :yike:
Post by: Jingles on April 23, 2013, 10:10:37 PM
i.e. new work times for the creeks on Blewett pass 1 Aug to 28 Feb like anyone can get into any of the creeks in Dec Jan and Feb to run a dredge in the rivers and creeks.
They (WDFW) does NOT use scientific information in making any decisions. Hell there are times they don't even use common sense.
Post by: Kola16 on April 23, 2013, 10:13:08 PM
Not to jack the thread but now you fishermen are seeing what we as miners have been fighting with for over 10 years in regards to work times in the rivers with Special Hydraulic Approval Permits to dredge or even pan in the rivers.I agree. Mining season is total BS :bash: :bash: :bash: :bash: Except the streams around here are open for like a month in the summer. A month! Really?????!!!! :bash: :bash: :bash:
i.e. new work times for the creeks on Blewett pass 1 Aug to 28 Feb like anyone can get into any of the creeks in Dec Jan and Feb to run a dredge in the rivers and creeks.
They (WDFW) does NOT use scientific information in making any decisions. Hell there are times they don't even use common sense.